Real filibusters don't exist anymore

December 13, 2012

I have read about the old days in the Senate when a filibuster actually meant unlimited debate or senators reading anything into the record to indefinitely postpone a vote on legislation. I could not picture our Sen. Pat Toomey reading The Morning Call into the record to stop a vote on increasing taxes. Now a filibuster just means that one party in the Senate does not have the votes — usually 60 — to bring the measure to a vote.

But isn't the current attempt to legislate enough revenue to reduce our budget deficits and eventually to reduce our national debt just one big filibuster? The legislators are aimlessly talking about why their constituencies are more important than the good of the country. And the media add to this hubbub around the clock.

Essentially, the top 2 percent should pay more — through higher rates because there is no other way without damaging deductions for the middle class. Taxes should not go up on those earning less than the somewhat arbitrary $250,000, but those earners should pay more into the safety net for their future. And those of us now retired should be appropriately means-tested above an appropriate (higher than now) income for our Medicare coverage. Those who have the ability should contribute.